奧巴馬得到諾貝爾和平獎，成為國際笑話一樁。若追溯提名日期，他剛上任不久，說他有建樹實在是講不過去。
獲獎備受爭議不出奇，我們過往也見過阿拉法或基辛格等火藥味濃的人獲獎，但奇就奇在諾貝爾委員會主席說是奧巴馬獲所有委員一致支持而得獎，我相信全世界人都會對這個決定起懷疑了。
是否因為超級好戰的大頑童喬治布殊下台，諾貝爾委員會就要派糖給他的繼任人，「鼓勵」奧巴馬不走喬治布殊的鷹派好戰外交政策？是否奧巴馬競選時的「遠見」，委員會已覺得他一定會兌現競選承諾？
不過這一切也不重要，這個獎將令奧巴馬有壓力，國策必以和平為先，否則在任內會被人唾罵，他斷不會是另一個喬治布殊，話又得說回頭，諾貝爾委員會的公信力，未來將受嚴峻的考驗。他們「賭」這一鋪其實很大呢！
You are absolutely correct. By supporting a lot (as much as possible)
One can ascertain that one will achieve some kind of relative response depending on how co incidental the responsive data is to the attention. If the optimal supportive motivation is relative to the foundation (wether valid or not) a supportive return will follow.
Accuracy is the issue. This is an hypothetical deduction (not quite as comprehensive as educational requirements are about here in North America) but by any of the individuals motive intelligence. Linguistics and vocabulary play the most important part of communication. Gaps of data in verbal communication only provide confusion.
To express anything at all one must work untill one can say what one means in its entirety otherwise one will express a peer groups distrust and desire to avoid the issue. The bottom line is to study practical, basic, fundemental, primary, ground level technicalities of domestic level to know for sure one is known for sure and this aspect goes far and beyond the experience of the
marriage relationship which is considered by most the most complete education for the poor. From your good friend Bruce K. Paxton
